First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect.

In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles.
Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black.

And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms.

I'll accept the definition of God that my opponent provided, "The creator of all things".

2. Rebuttal

"God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable"

I agree with my opponent's statement that in order for God to be the creator of all things, He must possess the qualities necessary in order to be the creator of all things. But what are these qualities? There seem to be a few obvious one, such as all-powerful (in order to create all things), transcendent (in order to exist outside of the space and time which He himself would have created), etc. However, I see no reason to think that the quality of having a color is necessary in order to be the "creator of all things". I invite my opponent to bring forward some kind of reasoning for thinking that this is a necessary quality of God.

"And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms."

I'm not sure what my opponent is getting at here. I'm also unsure if I'm willing to assume that God "lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates".

3. Arguments

In my rebuttal, I concluded that there is no reason to think that possessing color is a quality that is necessary for God. Far from this idea being necessary, I would argue that it is not reasonable to think God possesses color at all. This argument can be summed up in the following manner:

P1) God is the creator of all things.P2) Color falls into the category of "all things".C1) Therefore, God is the creator of color.

My opponent has already shown that he/she agrees with the first premise because the first premise is the very definition of God provided by my opponent. The second premise is self-evident; nothing can exist outside of "all things". The conclusion that God is the creator of color then logically follows. But, if God is the creator of color, then he clearly could not possess color Himself. In order for God to possess color, color (or the lack of color, if we're referring specifically to black) would need to have existed prior to God's creating it. This is, of course, absurd.

Furthermore, it seems to me that God, if we take him to be transcendent (existing outside of space and time) cannot possibly possess color (or the lack of color). Only material objects possess color or the lack of color. This argument can be summed up in this way:

P1) Only material objects can possess the quality of being black.P2) God is not a material object.C1) Therefore, God cannot possess the quality of being black.

In order to deny the first premise, my opponent must give some kind of reasoning for thinking that immaterial objects can possess the quality of being black. Suggesting that God is black is as absurd as suggesting that the number 7 is red or that truth is blue. The only other way to reject the conclusion that God cannot possess the color of being black would be to assert that God is a material object. But this contradicts the definition given by my opponent. If God is himself a material object, then He cannot have created the material world.

4. Summary

In his argument, my opponent asserted that the quality of having color (or lack of color) is necessary for God. My opponent failed to provide any sort of justification for this assertion, and as such we have no reason to take it to be true. I provided two arguments of my own in order to show the absurdity of God having color (or lack of color). As my opponent is responsible for carrying the burden of proof in showing that "God is black", he/she must refute each of the two arguments I presented and provide some kind of argument or reasoning of his/her own in order to win the debate.

God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally.

The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material"

Creation itself is a reflection of God's qualities. As it goes with the color Black which is a "visible" representation of the eternal nature of God, containing all things that ever was, is, and will ever be. Human beings have 5 physical senses that process the God data which covers every inch of the Earth.

So color is infact ONE of the necessary qualities for God to possess. Nothing in creation is arbitrary.

"Time" is planetary effect via the Sun. Suns are a density of creation, the most common being that of Light, and since both light and sound rely on Ether to travel (which is also Black), then God exists both "in" and "outside " of what we call "space and time"

Eternity is a difficult concept for anything that is not God, because only God can understand its nature in totality and God is eternal. Everything God creates now becomes restricted to "space and time" once it leaves the Mind of God. But the comprehensive concept of "God" cannot be created because it is eternal

In my opponent's last argument, he yet again has presented another unwarranted assertion. My opponent's claims implicitly suggest that he knows the mind of God, or at least he knows the necessary conditions in order for God to "create anything". My opponent goes on to claim that "color is infact ONE of the necessary qualities for God to possess." This is nonsense. God cannot hold the quality of being black (or any color) before color existed.

Time and time again, my opponent claims that God is necessarily black. This is demonstrably false. Anyone can conceive of God being immaterial (colorless). It couldn't be more clear that color is most certainly not a necessary quality of God, which is exactly what my opponent attempts to assert in this debate. In order to believe this, one must take the view that it is not possible for God to exist unless He is black. I'm not sure that there's anyone who would seriously hold this view. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to provide evidence and argument to think that this radical view is anything but nonsense.

2. Arguments

In the last round, I provided two arguments of my own to think that God is not black, as my opponent claims. Neither of these arguments were addressed by my opponent, so I take it that my opponent either agrees with their conclusion or else is incapable of refuting them. In any case, he is not able to win the debate unless and until both of these arguments are refuted and sound arguments in favor of his own position have been provided.

3. Summary

My opponent continually makes wild claims about the nature of God. For example, he has claimed that God is necessarily black, a claim which my opponent must know he cannot warrant. I have provided two arguments in favor of my position, both of which have thus far gone unrefuted. As I stated previously, in order for my opponent to win this debate, he must knock down each of these arguments and provide arguments of his own that support his assertion that God is necessarily black.

If combining science and the christian god, we can see that the original color of humans is black, and from there we use this verse:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27
So reverse the process and there you go, a black god ;)